Amateur-built THUNDER MUSTANG accident near Globe, Arizona, October 24, 2014
On October 24, 2014 at about 3:00 pm local time, a 2008 amateur-built THUNDER MUSTANG, registered N244SW, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Globe, Arizona. It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was seriously injured. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The separation of the main crank drive pulley from the engine’s accessory section due to three of its securing bolts backing out of their holes, which subsequently resulted in two accessory belts becoming unsecure, both crank sensor plugs becoming dislodged, the ignition source to the engine being interrupted, and the total loss of engine losing total power.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- October 24, 2014 · about 3:00 pm local time
- Place
- Globe, Arizona · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was seriously injured.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Amateur-built THUNDER MUSTANG, built 2008
- Registration
- N244SW · no longer on the register · serial GITM025
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The commercial pilot, who was also the owner/builder of the experimental, amateur-built airplane, reported that the purpose of the flight was to practice instrument approaches. He added that, after completing a practice instrument approach, executing the published missed approach procedure, and climbing to 6,500 ft mean sea level, he felt a reduction in power, followed by an rpm gauge reading of 0. The pilot subsequently made an off-field emergency landing to a dry river bed, which resulted in substantial damage to the airplane. A postaccident examination of the engine revealed that one of the three bolts that secures the main crank drive pulley to the associated damper was separated from the pulley and that the two bolts that remained in the pulley were loose. Additionally, both the left and right ignition leads were separated from their associated crank sensor plugs. Signatures on the main crank drive pulley's reluctor teeth were indicative of the main pulley having contacted the idler pulley and the idler arm subsequently separating from the pulley. This likely resulted in two accessory belts becoming unsecure, both crank sensor plugs becoming dislodged, and the subsequent total loss of engine power. A review of the maintenance records revealed that the engine had accumulated about 190 hours since its most recent overhaul. The pilot/owner stated that, when he reassembled the main crank drive pulley to the overhauled engine, he followed the procedures outlined in the engine's repair manual by torqueing each bolt to 35 ft-lbs of pressure and applying a thread-locking compound. However, visual and spectrographic analysis of material in the threads of the two recovered bolts did not detect signatures of the required thread-locking compound. Although this finding suggests that no thread-locking compound was used, it is not conclusive evidence that the compound was not applied during its most recent reassembly. Thus, the reason for the bolts becoming unsecured could not be conclusively determined.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Loss of engine power (total) during enroute (cruise) defining event
- Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (flare/touchdown)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (reciprocating) › Recip eng rear section › Malfunction
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Ignition system › Ignition power supply › Inoperative
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Terrain › (general) › Contributed to outcome
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Pole › Contributed to outcome
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 5,089 hours in all; 352 in this make and model; 18 in the last 90 days; 4 in the last 30 days; 4,953 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: October 7, 2014
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (waiver time limited special)
- Seat: frt
- Injury: serious injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 352.6 hours
- Last inspection: condition inspection, September 1, 2014; 15 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 3,600 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Ryan Falconer Racing Engines Falconer V12 (piston); 353 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: 57AZ Tucson AZ at 2:00 pm
- Destination: 57AZ Tucson AZ
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Visibility: 45 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 66°F (19°C), dew point 50°F (10°C)
- Altimeter: 30.07 inHg
- Observation at 2:51 pm from IWA, 50 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.
